GoBills808 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 intel is rarely helpful ahead of the scenes. it's missed all major attacks of war and terrorism, it's provided totally false info that has led to war. sorry, GoBills808, you rely on what intel says. Sorry... you rely on what CNN tells us intel says? Great. A CNN crack preceded by an abrupt change of stance, all within the span of ten minutes without attempting to address the initial query. Right on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Every time you think you're out, we pull you back in... Ain't it the truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/30/the-rise-of-jack-d-ripper-democrat/ The 2016 election happened, and to almost everyone's surprise, Donald Trump was the winner. There had to be a reason, right? It couldn't be that the Democrats had run possibly the least effective candidate in modern times, who promised to continue policies that had made hash of the health insurance system, resulted in the highest real unemployment and under-employment in modern history, never once achieved a reasonably robust level of economic growth and barely avoided an official recession on several occasions, and whose primary campaign theme seemed to be that she didn't have a penis and, while the director of the FBI made it clear she had unconscionably and probably illegally violated every principle of information security with a bootleg email server, she hadn't actually been indicted. That couldn't have been it. That's crazy talk. According to the recent book "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," by the day after her concession speech: Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument. (pg. 395) And so began the "Russia hacked the election" trope, which is still being pushed with half-truths. This has resulted in a new cottage industry: people "revealing" that Trump or someone working for Trump "committed treason" by talking to the Russians. Now, why talking to Russians would be "treason" they never quite fully explain Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch Let me be clear. @CORLEBRA777 has discovered that a bunch of RUSSIAN SPECIAL FORCES are holing up in a Trump property in Florida. YES REALLY 9:21 AM - 24 May 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/30/the-rise-of-jack-d-ripper-democrat/ The 2016 election happened, and to almost everyone's surprise, Donald Trump was the winner. There had to be a reason, right? It couldn't be that the Democrats had run possibly the least effective candidate in modern times, who promised to continue policies that had made hash of the health insurance system, resulted in the highest real unemployment and under-employment in modern history, never once achieved a reasonably robust level of economic growth and barely avoided an official recession on several occasions, and whose primary campaign theme seemed to be that she didn't have a penis and, while the director of the FBI made it clear she had unconscionably and probably illegally violated every principle of information security with a bootleg email server, she hadn't actually been indicted. That couldn't have been it. That's crazy talk. According to the recent book "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," by the day after her concession speech: Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument. (pg. 395) And so began the "Russia hacked the election" trope, which is still being pushed with half-truths. This has resulted in a new cottage industry: people "revealing" that Trump or someone working for Trump "committed treason" by talking to the Russians. Now, why talking to Russians would be "treason" they never quite fully explain It would be nice if we could properly label things, if for nothing but clarity's sake. There's little that would cause 'liberals' to bemoan a failed Clinton presidential bid; you're properly referring to 'Democrats'. I say this only because I am probably the most liberal poster here and a lot of the terminology behind political segmentation refers in fact to party affiliation as opposed to a particular individual's sociopolitical/economic bent, and I can't identify with half of what gets chalked up to liberalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Okay.......................we'll go with democrats. In the 'Russia' Investigation, Democrats, Spooks and Media Have Most to Fear https://pjmedia.com/election/2017/05/28/in-the-russia-investigation-democrats-spooks-and-media-have-most-to-fear/ The notion that Russia "hacked" the American election -- to the extent that it changed the outcome -- never made any sense. A fever dream cooked up by Sore Loser Hillary and her malignant consigliere, John Podesta, it began its demonic life as a way to explain Mrs. Clinton's astonishment and anger at losing an election all her media buddies told her was in the bag, and for which she felt sure the fix was in. It wasn't until the day of the vote, when the New York Times and Nate Silver got the spanking of their lives, that the roof finally conked her on the noggin. Those of us who habitually smell rats knew right off that there was nothing to it. But from that night forward, the Clintons, the Leftist media and the Democrats have been pounding the notion that, somehow, the Russians affected the election and that Trump is corrupt, morally unfit, an imbecile and an embarrassment to America. Take a good look at their reaction, ladies and gentlemen, for not since Linda Blair rotated 360 and spewed puke on a priest have we seen such deracinated contempt. Further, much of the "proof" stank to high heaven as well, including the infamous dossier cooked up by "British intelligence" that was laughably amateurish -- it is either the product of the disinformation campaign that the Deep State and the American and European media have been waging against the administration since its inception, or a back-door Trojan Horse designed by the Russians themselves. If "British intelligence" doesn't trust the American intelligence community any more, nobody in his right mind trusts MI5 and MI6 much these days, either. After all, they can't even keep "known wolves" out of their country, or from killing tween girls in Manchester. Meanwhile, the Russians do this sort of thing just to keep in shape: Let's get a few things straight: Of course the Russians tried to meddle in our election; so do other countries, and so do we in theirs, sometimes openly, sometimes covertly. Of course members of the incoming administration met with and spoke with Russians; that's their job. Further, Russia is no longer an enemy of the United States, in the sense that the Soviet Union was (I was there when it died); rather, it's an adversary with many shared interests with the U.S., as well as areas of competition and concern. To spin this into a "Trump/Flynn/Whoever was open to Russian blackmail" is a lie that only a useful idiot would believe. Far more likely is that it's Democrats -- who, prior to last November, never met a communist they didn't like or a Russian they didn't want to embrace -- who have overplayed their hand (notice how the tribal elders are even now walking back "impeachment" talk) and who are most at risk. They're so fully invested in this fairy tale that when it blows up in their faces, and another underlying reason for its concoction becomes clear, years of lamentation and wandering in the electoral wilderness should follow. Much more at the link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Much appreciated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 JOHN HINDERAKER: There is a deep irony in the fact that Democrats are hysterically demanding investigations of President Trump and his campaign team, and in fact multiple investigations are now in progress, even though there is zero evidence that anyone associated with the president has done anything wrong. On the other hand, we now know for certain that the Obama administration weaponized the intelligence agencies in order to use them against political opponents, in a manner that is unprecedented, highly dangerous to our democracy, and criminal. This scandal, which dwarfs anything of which the Trump team is even suspected, has been exposed and lies largely in plain sight for all to see. Yet it has generally been greeted with yawns, if acknowledged at all, by politicians and commentators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 The Kushner thread derailed into other topics. We still have an administration in waiting trying to operate with a foreign, largely adversarial, country outside the bounds of existing diplomacy and intel. Pretty concerning. Not because it feeds the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense but because it undermines the authority of the government it is about to become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Ya, this is pretty real. An administration that could give a fig about the rest of the world is tripping over itself to talk to the Russians, show them classified info, follow their foreign policy of trying to estrange us from Europe, oh, and btw, because there are questions about Trump being tied to the Russia gangsters financially, he will not show his taxes. And on and on, because there is way more than this But he is still worshipped by the right. Go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) The Kushner thread derailed into other topics. We still have an administration in waiting trying to operate with a foreign, largely adversarial, country outside the bounds of existing diplomacy and intel. Pretty concerning. Not because it feeds the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense but because it undermines the authority of the government it is about to become. It's something that's happened with every administration since Kennedy - and not just with Russia. But sure, it's pretty concerning. Not as concerning as this story which has been buried by the Kushner/Backchannel nonsense of course... Still going through this... but here's the FISA court requests from 44's administration in September. The headline so far: "Moreover, NSA upsteam collection acquired Internet communications that were to, from or about (i.e., containing a reference to) a selector tasked for acquisition under Section 702. As a result, upstream collection could acquire an entire MCT for which the active user was a non-target and that mostly pertained to non-targets, merely because a single discrete communication within the MCT was to, from or contained a reference to a tasked selector." https://i.imgur.com/VysdzE9.png What that means in short is the NSA massively overstepped its reach (shocking). It's saying that if you were a US citizen who was not on a target list, your communications were intercepted if it had a matching selector (email address, phone number, et al). So, for example, if the selector was say Julian Assange's wikileaks email address, your communications were picked up and unmasked if they in any way referenced that address or anything related to Assange, his email, or wikileaks. Let that sink in. This is significant because it shows NSA was in violation of its internal minimization rules. The NSA is not supposed to spy on citizens just for referencing or discussing a selector, not without a FISA warrant, but this is showing that's exactly what they did/are doing. Those thinking that the fourth amendment is still functional need to read this. Full doc: https://www.scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4#download Edited May 31, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) It's something that's happened with every administration since Kennedy - and not just with Russia. But sure, it's pretty concerning. Incoming administrations always set up secret back channels to hostile governments outside the current admin, state department, and intel community? The only thing I've heard that is remotely similar was the Russians contacting RFK. Also not good. Edited May 31, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Incoming administrations set up secret back channels to hostile governments outside the current admin, state department, and intel community? The only thing I've heard that is remotely similar was the Russians contacting RFK. Also not good. Well then. Seeing the almighty BF hasn't heard about it it's probably never happened. Carry on......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) Ya, this is pretty real. An administration that could give a fig about the rest of the world is tripping over itself to talk to the Russians, show them classified info, follow their foreign policy of trying to estrange us from Europe, oh, and btw, because there are questions about Trump being tied to the Russia gangsters financially, he will not show his taxes. And on and on, because there is way more than this But he is still worshipped by the right. Go figure Donald just got back from a long trip, so long that it plum wore him out meeting with other countries and thier leaders. If he doesn't care, why did he bother? Edited May 31, 2017 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) Incoming administrations always set up secret back channels to hostile governments outside the current admin, state department, and intel community? The only thing I've heard that is remotely similar was the Russians contacting RFK. Also not good. It's interesting how you have to put so many qualifiers in your statement just to make the point... and you still get it wrong. Russia isn't "hostile". And since JFK there have been back channels set up between Russia and the US as well as many other nations. Just because you're unaware of this history doesn't make it any less true. At the time this allegedly took place, Kushner had every right to have that sort of conversation. It wasn't illegal, it's not indicative of collusion, it's called keeping the back channels open to stave off disaster. Factor in at the time of the alleged conversation Trump was railing to anyone who would listen that he was being monitored by the outgoing Administration, State Department and CIA - it makes complete sense to ask for secure channels under those conditions. Might it be slightly paranoid? Sure. And let's remember, this story was planted by Russia's spy chief... and now you're taking the story at face value and running with it. Meaning you're taking the information provided to you by what you believe to be a "hostile" nation and not bothering to question it at all. That's called being a good drone, BF. Way to show off your critical thinking skills. The fact you're more alarmed by a routine matter of international diplomacy than you are about massive (and ongoing) over reach by the USIC shows how confused you actually are. Edited May 31, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Donald just got back from a long trip, so long that it plum wore him out meeting with other countries and thier leaders. If he doesn't care, why did he bother? At the beginning, nay, before the beginning it was all Russia. When he wasn't screaming at our allies his was yucking it up with Putin's criminal darlings. He's compromised. He should just release his taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 It's interesting how you have to put so many qualifiers in your statement just to make the point... and you still get it wrong. Russia isn't "hostile". And since JFK there have been back channels set up between Russia and the US as well as many other nations. Just because you're unaware of this history doesn't make it any less true. At the time this allegedly took place, Kushner had every right to have that sort of conversation. It wasn't illegal, it's not indicative of collusion, it's called keeping the back channels open to stave off disaster. Factor in at the time of the alleged conversation Trump was railing to anyone who would listen that he was being monitored by the outgoing Administration, State Department and CIA - it makes complete sense to ask for secure channels under those conditions. Might it be slightly paranoid? Sure. And let's remember, this story was planted by Russia's spy chief... and now you're taking the story at face value and running with it. Meaning you're taking the information provided to you by what you believe to be a "hostile" nation and not bothering to question it at all. That's called being a good drone, BF. Way to show off your critical thinking skills. The fact you're more alarmed by a routine matter of international diplomacy than you are about massive (and ongoing) over reach by the USIC shows how confused you actually are. Sure, the people that just interfered with our election, had sanctions placed on them and do not represent our democratic values want to talk to our government without the rest of the government knowing about, nothing strange there. Or the meeting he had with Putin's banker right after. Add in the fact Kusher failed to mention these meeting when applying for security clearance. Aside from all that and more, nothing to see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 Back channels are of course normal and critical. But not for every incoming admin since Kennedy as you stated. Questioning the motivation of a possible Russian source doesn't change Kushner's actions, which display an amateur's understanding of government transfer of power and international diplomacy, at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Sure, the people that just interfered with our election, had sanctions placed on them and do not represent our democratic values want to talk to our government without the rest of the government knowing about, nothing strange there. Or the meeting he had with Putin's banker right after. Add in the fact Kusher failed to mention these meeting when applying for security clearance. Aside from all that and more, nothing to see! Please elaborate on that. Just how exactly, was our election interfered with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Please elaborate on that. Just how exactly, was our election interfered with? Does gatorman voting count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Back channels are of course normal and critical. But not for every incoming admin since Kennedy as you stated. Questioning the motivation of a possible Russian source doesn't change Kushner's actions, which display an amateur's understanding of government transfer of power and international diplomacy, at best. I'd argue that back channels are absolutely critical. But why this back channel with this country at that time with their communications facilities? And by a private citizen to boot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts